Hypocrites in a hurry — Harper’s mad dash to pass C-51

Some issues, the Harper government tells us, are so important, so controversial that no legislation can go forward unless it is preceded by extensive consultation and analysis. Unless it can. Follow along — and if you can make sense of this, you have a future in PR.

Last month, the Conservatives killed a Liberal motion that would have fast-tracked the study and debate of physician-assisted suicide. The reason for urgency was plain enough: The Supreme Court of Canada had struck down the legal ban on assisted death and gave Parliament 12 months to fill the legislative void.

Bob Dechert, parliamentary secretary to the minister of Justice, explained why the Conservatives are in no rush:

… given the special circumstances of this issue, which is among the most important that we will ever have to deal with, and in the context of this year, I do not think we should be rushed into doing something that is inappropriate and not take the time to properly and carefully consider it and hear all opinions.

Fair enough. It’s a big hot-button issue and we want to get it right the first time. Terrorism is also a big hot-button issue, as are measures that encroach on Canadian civil liberties.

So why is Ottawa taking a go-slow approach to assisted death when, in the case of C-51, the plan appears to be to steamroll the opposition, torque up public anxiety over the vaguest of threats and accuse critics of being closet terrorists? Bet you can guess why.

That’s not enough time even to fake sober analysis. The Conservatives are allowing the Commons just a little over a week to review the most significant changes to Canada’s security and surveillance laws since in over a decade — less time than the average college undergrad might spend picking out a bachelor apartment.

Remember the context. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks, the Liberal government of the day also introduced sweeping legislation that gave the state unheard-of powers to combat terrorism. The committee that studied the 2001 bill sat for 19 days and heard from 80 witnesses. The government actually listened to the witnesses and, ultimately, agreed to substantial amendments.

The Official Opposition at the time was the Canadian Alliance, precursor to the modern Conservative party. Were they content with 80 witnesses and 19 days of committee study? Here’s what Alliance leader Stockwell Day had to say at the time:

I am disappointed and concerned that the government decided to rush through this complicated, controversial and powerful piece of legislation without debate and input. That was necessary for legislation of this nature.

The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for legislation that would give the government the tools to fight terrorism. However, the government has cut off debate and cut it off in a premature fashion.

This reveals what we have pointed out before: an ongoing contempt for the democratic process …

What wasn’t good enough for Day is just dandy for Prime Minister Harper, who has warned of dire consequences for the safety of every living Canadian if the bill isn’t studied and passed “as quickly as possible”.

Let people drill down into the details of C-51 and they’ll worry less about what terrorists might do to them and more about what the government intends to do. The last thing the Conservatives can afford to give us is time.

Granted, a longer committee process might not be all that useful anyway, given the childish way Conservative caucus members have been behaving to date. Verbally attacking and insulting witnesses. Accusing them of harbouring links to terrorists. One backbencher asked a witness from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association if she was “fundamentally opposed to taking terrorists off the streets”. These are not the sorts of questions you ask if you’re interested in the answers.

And you can get a sense of how seriously the government takes this committee review from a glance at the long list of experts requested by the opposition parties as witnesses, but left off the list by the Conservatives: University of Ottawa law professor and digital privacy expert Michael Geist; Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien; Maher Arar; Dennis O’Connor, the commissioner of the inquiry into Arar’s torture; the Canadian Bar Association; former prime ministers; Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley, who found CSIS had lied to obtain warrants; and the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, which I represent.

What do all of these individuals and groups have in common? Two things: They know the law — much better, it seems, than the people who drafted C-51 — and they’ve all been critical of the bill’s effects on privacy and civil rights.

There’s an added benefit to controlling the witness list, of course: You can shove words into the mouths of anyone you don’t invite. Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney assures us that he has “consulted” with Therrien. What he doesn’t say is that this ‘consultation’ amounted to Therrien telling him the bill is a dangerous and misguided spasm of government overreach into the private lives of Canadians — that C-51 will give the government “virtually limitless powers to monitor and … profile ordinary Canadians”.

So what does Stockwell Day have to say about all this? The committee members may never know; although the Liberals wanted to hear from him, Day never received an invitation to testify.

Limit debate, suppress critical views, twist the truth — they’re running down every page in the Conservatives’ pre-election playbook. When NDP Leader Tom Mulcair asked in the Commons why the government was putting the “emphasis on getting the committee to study the bill as quickly as possible, not as thoroughly as possible”, Blaney responded with an ad hominem attack:

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve better than an opposition leader who attacks the credibility of those who are there to protect us.

Let us face reality. For 30 years, those men and women at CSIS, working at protecting Canadians, have worked within the law. I invite the member to apologize for pretending that they have broken the law, because that is not the case. This is in the report. They are complying with the law.

Blaney needs to read his own department’s briefing books a little more closely. Maher Arar and Justice Mosley could talk at length about how good CSIS is at working “within the law” — if they were allowed to.

This is all gutter politics, of course. Terror seems to be playing well in an election year. The Conservatives know that the longer the committee studies the bill, the more people come forward to testify to its many and manifest flaws, the harder it will be to present C-51 to the Canadian public as the nation’s sword and shield.

Let people drill down into the details and they’ll worry less about what terrorists might do to them and more about what the government intends to do. The last thing the Conservatives can afford to give us is time.

Debate is not a luxury, or something to be sprinted through in order to get things done. It’s the essence of our system of government; without it, we don’t have a system — just government. Stockwell Day said it in 2001 and it’s still true. Wonder what he’d say today?

Michael Spratt is a well-known criminal lawyer and partner at the Ottawa law firm Abergel Goldstein & Partners. He has appeared in all levels of court and specializes in complex litigation. Mr. Spratt is frequently called upon to give expert testimony at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. He is a past board member of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and is on the board of directors of the Defence Counsel Association of Ottawa. Mr. Spratt’s continuing work can be found at www.michaelspratt.com and on twitter at @mspratt

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

If there is one man who is truly a caricature of this current government, it is Stockwell Day. His smug smirking on P&P (for which he is a frequent guest…for some reason), slander, and hypocrisy are tremendous. When called on it by other panelists he simply shrugs it off and never answers the question. This government is simply horrid.

He was a member of the government, holds consultancies and lobbies, and is a member of Steve’s Missionary Alliance Church.
Why has a no-account reality-denying freak like Day been able to prosper? Because of his connections to government.
In a right-thinking world, he would never have had a chance at leading or influencing anything.

If Trudeau gets in he’ll celebrate with a pot party and raid the Parliamentary pantry for kibbles and forget all about anything important including C51. He’ll then ride his bike in the bike lanes around Parliament hill trying to find a dealer. After finding several he’ll proceed to a dollar store and buy a plastic crown, as he would be king.

LOL!!! Or not… YOU wouldn’t by any chance be one of those drug dealers selling “pot” to kids that JT wants to put out of business by make marijuana legal in the same way alcohol products are? Collecting MILLIONS in taxes, exactly like the Gov. does on booze, from “pot” seems pretty smart to me, that’s why I support it… Unlike a “pot” expert like you, I really don’t know any more than that about “pot”, I’ve never tried it, and I’m a senior…

I like you a senior living off the avails of the government but Pierre Trudeau was a bane of this country for too long and to again recycle another one would be a mistake. As the saying goes “be careful what you wish for”. Two questions emerge from this conversation. 1: How do you know if I’m a pot expert, assumption? 2: If your a senior where were you in the 60’s and 70’s, under a rock? No harm intended just asking.

Lets go through this, Vietnam 30K-40K Canadian Citizens went to Vietnam as soldiers. the ones killed are on memorial walls in Canada. Iraq, nobody in their right mind would go as it was a folly by Bush. The Charter, the Charter was not finalised

To continue, Mr Tudeau gave us the War Measures Act in 1970. This act put approximately 630 innocent Canadians in jail with no bale and had to be released without charge. Kelowna Accord, Was struck down by the Constitution act of 1867 and never inacted. Peace keeping was not invented by the Liberals during the cold war. In fact it was started by the U.N. in 1948 called the Truce Supervision, hence UNTSO.

The Liberals supported Meech Lake and the Charlotte Accord which would have given the Quebec government unreasonable power within Canada just to get the vote in Que. The Liberals also gave us 2 Languages as if we needed the huge cost it inflicted. Which brings me to the National Anthem. The English version has been edited 2 times the French Version has not. By the way did you no they are 2 totally different songs.

the liberals did not give us the Canadian flag. They may have been in power but Mr George Stanley gave us the flag. The one Mr Pearson wanted was voted down by the parliamentary committee that was enacted to oversee the choice. 7 out of 15 were Liberals

And to finish my rant the time you say you had to quite school to help your mom to get out of extreme poverty as you put it remember that Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in power giving everyone the finger on his train at that time so if and when the honorable Justin Trudeau gets in power your grand children may have to leave school to help you out of poverty. Still proud to be a Liberal?

LOL!!! You’ve just PROVED you’re so full of it your eyes have turned completely brown… All my grandchildren, and ALL Cnadian grandchildren have to worry about is the $179 BILLION dollars of DEBT Harper has added to Canada’s National Debt… Thay and their children will be the ones that have to pay that debt off… Damn right I’m VERY proud to be a Liberal…

Your talking to the wrong person. Where in my rant did I say I was a Harper supporter? The last bit about your extreme poverty you mention about was a dig in jest just to get you thinking. If you had any sense at all you should again read what Mr Hehr says and do some research for yourself, but no, you liberals are so self absorb you fear it’s true. My eyes might be brown as you put it but I’m not blind as you are. Finally, you haven’t debated anything with me all you’ve done is berated and insulted. A sign of a well healed man I suspect. If your willing to debate in the true sense say something tangible, or with merit otherwise don’t say anything at all because your not worth anyone’s time to confer with.

Ummm, sorry, you’ve got that exactly BACKWARD… MORONey was behind BOTH Meach Lake and The Charlottetown Accords, which the Liberals OPPOSED with Pierre Elliott Trudeau coming out of retirement and leading the charge against them…